+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: Is [a] always [a]? (/thread-3146.html)
Is [a] always [a]? - Koen G - 05-04-2020
Background: Ever since I got into entropy (thanks Anton) I've had my eye on "minim clusters" like [ain] and [aiin].
Last year I You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with modifying EVA transcriptions in order to increase entropy. The most effective measure I was able to find is to replace things like [aiin] by a single character. For example, [dain] becaomes [d1], [daiin] becomes [d2]. This measure alone bridges 1/3 of the gap between an EVA transcription and a low-entropy normal text.
(Side note: combining different measures has unpredictable results, and after a while there are diminishing returns. Solving one entropy issue just shifts the problem to others).
Now, I know there are exceptions, but this thread is not about those. The general tendency is that EVA-[i] or [ii] is preceded by [a] and followed by [n] (and to a much lesser extent [r]).
In other words, if I say EVA-[ii], you can pretty safely add [a] and [n]. This is why entropy is low, because the glyphs are so predictable.
Now a few days ago, Lisa Fagin Davis You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that "When [a] is followed by a minim, it ligates to the top of the minim. When [a] is followed by just about anything else, it does not ligate. But until we know what language this represents, we can’t know if this rule is paleographic or linguistic."
All these examples are from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. :
The ligation looks rather variable, but that's not the point. What I wonder is: how can we know whether these are all variations of the glyph EVA calls [a]? Don't some of these look more like a bunch of minims with a loop on the left and right? Like an "m"? In the same way "anchiton" could also be "michiton"? If [aiin] really contains the separate unit [a], then why is it always there? Might what we call [a] preceding minims just be what the VM minim looks like when it's not preceded by a minim? Like an onset flourish? How can we know?
RE: Is [a] always [a]? - -JKP- - 05-04-2020
Good idea for a thread.
My feeling is that the "a" shape is so variable in the VMS I'm really reluctant to call it "a". I'm even more uncomfortable calling the last shape "n" since it might be a minim with a tail or a v-shape (just the shape) or a couple of other possibilities (some of the VMS "n" shapes look like medieval loopless "d").
I need to get it finished, but I have a mostly written blog about loop-m— the style of "m" (with the rounded approach stroke) that the "michiton" interpretation is based upon. I have lots of examples from manuscripts so that we can all look at them and compare to how it is written in the VMS.
But... to get to your point... it's my feeling that we have to be careful to not assume it's an "a" shape, and the "michiton" example you mentioned is one of the reasons why. If it's a looped approach stroke (a leading serif), then there's no reason to equate it with "a" (except perhaps in the cipher sense) and there is also the possibility that it might be "c" + "i". And... since daiin has varying numbers of minims, some of them might even be the "c" + "u" shape (I have a feeling that daiin might be more varied than is reflected in transcripts).
RE: Is [a] always [a]? - Koen G - 05-04-2020
This reminds me of what you wrote about Roman numerals once JKP. If the c-part of [a] in [aiin] is a leading serif and the swoosh on the [n] is merely a flourish, then [daiin] is actually four minims, or IIII.
RE: Is [a] always [a]? - Aga Tentakulus - 06-04-2020
Thanks Koen
That's a really interesting topic.
Is "a" = "a"?
Assuming, I'm thinking about this topic like around 1500.
If I just look at the language, "a=a"
If I take a dictionary, then "a=o" can be, in another word is "a=i". ( Variations on dialects.)
But usually a vowel remains, a vowel.
RE: Is [a] always [a]? - ReneZ - 06-04-2020
Hmmm, my post ended up in Nirvana? Here goes again....
It's a good point and there are (for example) many intermediate forms between a and o.
Look for example at the definition of the v101 alphabet. I recently redid the charts:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
There is such a character transliterated as "A" which occurs 769 times in GC's transliteration.
There are numerous other cases. Try to decide, e.g. what the end of line 3 on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. says.
Is that Eva-ein or Eva-an ?
RE: Is [a] always [a]? - Aga Tentakulus - 06-04-2020
@Rene........question
The link to the table. I now have an assignment of the VM characters to the PC.
Example: iin = m
But do I also have a library where I can make "m" a value "-ung".
I have to put the VM characters into a familiar form, otherwise all this is useless.
4 characters VM-word in "pa-st - ten-se"
This is the only way to create a meaningful text together.
@Rene.........Frage
Den Link zur Tabelle. Ich habe jetzt eine Zuweisung der VM-Zeichen zum PC.
Beispiel: iin = m
Aber habe ich auch eine Bibliothek wo ich "m" zu einen Wert "-ung" machen kann.
Ich muss doch die VM-Zeichen in eine vertraute Form bringen, sonst nützt das alles nichts.
4 Zeichen VM-Wort in "ver-gan-gen-heit"
Nur so kann man einen Sinnvollen Text zusammen basteln.
Hat es da eine Verknüpfung zu einer Bibliothek ?
RE: Is [a] always [a]? - ReneZ - 06-04-2020
@Aga Tentakulus,
if I understand your question correctly, you are talking about how to interpret the symbols / glyphs.
I don't know (at least not yet) how to do that.
Regardless whether a transliteration uses "iin" or "M" or "m" to represent iin , this becomes the next step.
One should indeed try to ignore what the transcriber has used, because he/she may not have given it that much thought anyway.
The real problem with transliterations is, when two symbols that were intended to be different are transliterated the same, because this is when information is lost.
GC was of the opinion that the different shapes of plumes on Sh are significant, so he introduced many different symbols for them. Who knows if he was right. However, if he was, transliterations that do not capture these differences become defective.
RE: Is [a] always [a]? - -JKP- - 06-04-2020
(06-04-2020, 08:54 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
The real problem with transliterations is, when two symbols that were intended to be different are transliterated the same, because this is when information is lost.
...
I very much agree with this. Unfortunately with the VMS, the devil might be hiding in the details.
RE: Is [a] always [a]? - Koen G - 06-04-2020
The problem is that with scripts like these you don't know for sure until you know which words you're supposed to be reading, until you can do some contextual guessing. Look at all the trouble we're having with the marginalia. The only words we know how to read for sure are the month names, and that is because the images tell us to expect month names.
But for the other marginalia, as soon as there are minims involved, you're in trouble if you don't know enough context. The same might be true with VM minims, only here we don't even know what kind of system we're looking at.
RE: Is [a] always [a]? - MarcoP - 06-04-2020
(05-04-2020, 10:39 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I wonder is: how can we know whether these are all variations of the glyph EVA calls [a]? Don't some of these look more like a bunch of minims with a loop on the left and right? Like an "m"? In the same way "anchiton" could also be "michiton"? If [aiin] really contains the separate unit [a], then why is it always there? Might what we call [a] preceding minims just be what the VM minim looks like when it's not preceded by a minim? Like an onset flourish? How can we know?
Hi Koen,
it seems to me that the idea can be interpreted in two different ways:
1. there are tiny differences in the shape of 'a' that really represent different characters (along the lines of what 101 does, as Rene said)
2. a+i is different from a+anythingElse
In order to say something about 1, a transcription representing that specific difference is necessary. Carefully transcribing a few pages could be enough to give an answer: do the two shapes systematically occur in different contexts (preceding and following glyphs)?
2 could be easier. As a first step, this are counts for the left context of a+i vs a+[^i], i.e. not(i) (Takahashi transcription). "Not(i)" includes space.
In my opinion (if I have not messed things up) this graph suggests that the symbols are at least closely related. The differences are due to the fact that words tend to either include e-bench sequences or i-sequences, not both (an interesting fact discussed by Emma You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
This said, your idea of treating aiin as a single entity makes perfect sense: if the writing system is phonetical (meaningful or not) iin could be like an accent, that in a few languages (e.g. Italian) is only used for vowels at the end of words.
(06-04-2020, 09:52 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The only words we know how to read for sure are the month names, and that is because the images tell us to expect month names.
I think that the month names are easy to read because they form a well-known sequence in the correct order. The images may be helpful, but not necessary (though the month names would likely not be there without the images). This list is so clearly meaningful that it really does not belong with the rest of the manuscript
